So is it?

what! are you trying to start a fight?

Of course it is

Isn't that one reason we enjoy them so much

Unless your part of the pepsi generation then you like those slick plastic ones with the wheel on the front better

glaciercub wrote:what! are you trying to start a fight?

No, sorry, I was pondering whether it was ethical to crosspost the statement made on another forum that made me want to bring up the question here. I've decided not to post it, but the person in question stated that a taildragger is an antiquated design, and there is nowhere that a taildragger can go that a tricycle gear plane, expertly piloted, cannot go. Wondered what you all think?

I'm not looking for ammunition, I have my opinion and he has his. For one I'd like to see someone put a 31" tire on a nosewheel, or stand on the brakes and elevate the nose before the takeoff roll But as someone who is thinking of going back to a tricycle gear when/if I no longer live somewhere that makes ski flying practical...I wonder if - other than the fun and enjoyment of flying and owning a taildragger - there is truly an advantage besides skis or is it true that today's bush trigear planes can hack everything a taildragger can? Discuss.

I think this might be a never ending debate--I prefer a tailwheel, but it is simply because most every plane of our past that I would like to fly is a tailgragger.

And the fact that they look way cooler.

I wonder what percentage of pilots actually use that part of the flight envelope that would only be able to use a conventional or tricycle for their applications. My guess is not many!!

Once,

In my opinion, OTHER than ski flying, there really isn't much that a good trigear airplane can't do that a tailwheel airplane can.

That said, most of the tri gear airplanes around are pretty shy on prop clearance, etc, so would require more maintenance.

Look around Alaska. See many 185's working these days? Mostly 206/207/Lance, etc. That's not just because 185's aren't in production, either.

MTV

While I'm not an Alaska veteran, I can tell you there sure seemed to be a lot more improved strips up in the North West territory than I remember 40 years or so ago. As a kid flying with my Father in a 182, there were places that worried us, but last year I didn't see anything that I would have been uncomfortable landing in a light twin.
I think the runways have gotten smoother and longer than they used to be and these smoother and longer runways lend themselves to greater safety and efficiency.
Yes the tail dragger is an antiquated design, tail wheel proficient pilots are getting harder and harder to come by. In the 21st. century I think it could be argued that a tail wheel airplane makes as much sense for the masses as a Hummer does on any major city highway.
I like them because they are more of a challenge to fly. Rarely do I ever go anywhere you can't get say a 182 on 8.50" into, and I have no NEED to go anywhere a 182 can't.
Look at any OLD car like a Model T or A. Those tall tires were needed because the roads weren't paved. Tricycle gear airplanes have evolved for the same reasons a modern car doesn't look like a Model T.
An opinion only of course. For me a little Mooney probably would be more logical than My Maule, but I just can't bring myself to do it. Honestly for me no airplane is logical, but I don't want to do that either.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:So is it?

Yes, but if they didn't sell nobody would make them.

I liken it to folks who drive a car to folks who ride a motorcycle. It's just where your heart and mind are.

Rob

Antiquated? Nope. Match the plane to the mission.

Most airfields these days are permissive for nose-draggers...some aren't. At my grass field the C-150s, Cherokee, and Grumman Tiger don't fly when it snows or when the rain softens the ground. My Kitfox and the Champ parked next to me...no problem (until the field turns to mush during spring melt off).

For an extreme example check out the "Big Rocks, Long Props" DVD series. No nose-dragger can do that stuff.

Soft or very rough short strips nose gear be damned and don,t forget it.

I think A64 hit the nail on the head - evolution of the operational environment has allowed for tri-gears to do most of the work out there safely and cost effectively. For us, the hobbyists, what does antiquated mean anyway? You might just as well say that ultralights, hang gliders, and vintage aircraft are antiquated too, but to the guy/gal strapped into their flying machine and having a blast "antiquated" is an irrelevant term.

Thread split alert *** Now that we've solved that great riddle, lets tackle the age-old question of wheel landings vs 3-pts in a crosswind...

Vick wrote:Thread split alert *** Now that we've solved that great riddle, lets tackle the age-old question of wheel landings vs 3-pts in a crosswind...

I think we have beaten that one to death before haven't we?

I think the best argument you will find for a nosewheel plane doing what many WON'T do in a taildragger is Petersons Katmai. Really look at his videos, VERY impressive for a nosewheel plane. Other than waterskiing and snowskiing with a plane, can you think of many places he hasn't been able to go that a 185 on the same size tires won't? Not many I bet.

I would not get rid of my 180 for nothing, having learned T-D's from the start at 15 years old I love the challenge.

Vick wrote:
Thread split alert *** Now that we've solved that great riddle, lets tackle the age-old question of wheel landings vs 3-pts in a crosswind...

I think we have beaten that one to death before haven't we?

I was just trying to be provocative A64, is there really an anwer to any of these questions?

Haha! Great thread. These are the kind of debates I like.

As much as I love flying my tailwheeler, I tend to agree with MTV. Functionally, a tri-gear can accomplish 95% of the missions people buy tailwheel aircraft for, and do it with fewer incidents.

They just don't look as cool doing it, nor do they give you much to do on the ground. Plus, I kind of like the prestige and respect you get from people who have tried to land or takeoff a taildragger in the past and found it....difficult. But then, I also like telemark skiing, using the Linux operating system, and fly fishing -- all things that are more challenging, not necessarily better, but a lot more fun.

Well just be sure ya do not forget that last 5%.

Not sure I would want to try pushing a nose wheel while swapping ends on the top end of Dewey Moore etc.

Not that I will ever try it, even with the small wheel where it belongs. (emoticonscious of ya choice)

Hey guys it is me with the strait tail 182. My plane will out perform me. I can do about 50% of what my plane is capable of. The last thing I need to wory about is that 5% you tail wheel guys are talking about.

Bush wheels on a Maule or SC look awsom. But so does that 4 wheel drive that some hay hen in Hollywood drives to Starbucks.

And by the way, I am still tempted to convert my 182 to a tail wheel plane. The 15K and added insurance costs has kept that idea at bay.

Probably be sheaper to buy a second plane (Champ) than convert my plane.

Tim

There really isn't anywhere I go that I wouldn't be just as comfortable flying a 172, 182 or 206. That being said, I do not operate my airplane at the edges if its envelope. Its capabilities exceed my own.

I enjoy tailwheel airplanes because of the challenge, the novelty, and the fact that it keeps me honest and challenges me to improve my skill every time I line up on the runway centerline... whether it is painted (more so then actually) or imaginary in the grass, dirt, gravel, sand... whatever. It just makes me a more dilligent pilot.

And they look cool. And I would like to fly a warbird someday. etc. etc.

M

mtv wrote:Once,

In my opinion, OTHER than ski flying, there really isn't much that a good trigear airplane can't do that a tailwheel airplane can.

MTV

Someone pointed out to me a while back, possibly even MTV, that tri-gear skis do exist. They seem about as rare as hens teeth and tough to find first person accounts of how well they work.

Either
1. They suck.
or
2. They just haven't caught on yet.

Craig

When I need my trike fix, I just strap into this: